Accepted Manuscript

Efficient strengthening of opened-joint for reinforced concrete broken slabs

Hamdy M. Afefy, Nesreen M. Kassem, Mohamed H. Mahmoud, Salah El-Din

F. Taher

PII: S0263-8223(15)00997-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.11.007
Reference: COST 6962

To appear in: Composite Structures

Please cite this article as: Afefy, H.M., Kassem, N.M., Mahmoud, M.H., Taher, S.E-D., Efficient strengthening of
opened-joint for reinforced concrete broken slabs, Composite Structures (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.compstruct.2015.11.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Efficient strengthening of opened-joint for reinforced concrete broken
slabs
By

Hamdy M. Afefy1*, Nesreen M. Kassem2, Mohamed H. Mahmoud3 and Salah El-Din F. Taher3

1
Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta,
2
Assistant Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta,
3
Professor, Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta,

*Corresponding author
Hamdy M. Afefy
Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Dept.,
Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University,
Tanta 31511,
Egypt.
Tel: +20 106 177 3174
E mail: hamdyafefy@hotmail.com,

-1-
Abstract

Reinforced concrete broken slab presents a crucial element that exists in all multi-story buildings.

Normally, it can be used as the flight of the stair. In many cases such element is in urgent need for

strengthening or upgrading due to change of the usage or any construction errors. The current paper

presents three different strengthening strategies for opened-joint broken slabs in the aim of doubling

their flexural resistance. The adopted strategies were the application of Externally Bonded Carbon Fiber

Reinforced Polymer (EB-CFRP) sheets, adding thin layer of Ultra High-Performance Strain-Hardening

Cementitious Composites (UHP-SHCC), and the application of hybrid system integrated both former

techniques. The studied parameters were the anchorage system of the CFRP sheets at the opened-joint as

well as the connection between the substrate slab and the UHP-SHCC layer. Based on the overall

structural performance and exhibited ductility, the application of properly anchored EB-CFRP sheets on

a well-connected UHP-SHCC layer enabled the substrate broken slab to exhibit the most favorable

behavior. Finally, a new stitching procedure was proposed in order to construct precast slab similar to

monolithic one and then strengthened using the same strengthening strategies. Its performance showed

comparable results against the results of the monolithic broken slab.

Keywords: carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP); Ultra high-performance strain-hardening

cementitious material (UHP-SHCC); strengthening; opened-joint; broken slab; precast slab.

1. Introduction

Broken slab is considered as the most important structural element that exists in all multistory reinforced

concrete structures. The obvious example of the broken slab is the stair’s flight. Also, it can be used as a

transit between levels inside the structure. These slabs include two different joints; namely, closed-joint

and opened-joint. Incorrect detailing of closed-joint is hardly happened, however, incorrect detailing of

-2-
opened-joint could be happened leading to falling of the concrete cover associated with the formation of

major cracks at the defected joint as depicted in Fig. 1. Thus, cautious should be paid to the

configuration of the internal reinforcement detailing. As a consequence, proper strengthening/

retrofitting of the opened-joint for broken slabs could be a challenging issue.

Different strengthening/retrofitting techniques have been developed in order to upgrade/restore the

strength of an assigned structure or a part of it so that the serviceability or durability problems could be

eliminated. These techniques include traditional concrete patching, section enlargement, external plate

bonding using either steel plates or fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) plates/sheets, and external post-

tensioning. External plate bonding incorporating steel plates can be accomplished using either adhesive

bonding or bolting. Unfortunately, large equipment is required to install the heavy steel plates. As a

result, the installation costs are significantly high [1]. In addition, external steel plate bonding and

external post-tensioning strands are susceptible to corrosion damage that may lead to durability

problems and accelerate the failure of the strengthened system. Accordingly, implementation of new

non-corrosive material as a substitute to conventional steel reinforcement was presented [2, 3].

Strengthening of RC slabs by adding a new layer of concrete is another strengthening technique.

However, this layer can result in durability problems due to differential movements between the

substrate slab and the overlay caused by shrinkage, temperature variations or both and poor

workmanship [4, 5]. Thus, cracking and de-lamination along the transition zone between the two

materials could be experienced. Therefore, good surface preparation and/or using proper connectors

between the two layers is essential [6, 7].

Fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) materials have been rapidly widespread as

strengthening/retrofitting material in recent years due to their favorable characteristics such as high

tensile strength, lightweight, corrosion resistance and ease of application. These characteristics are not

-3-
available in other traditional strengthening materials. Among different types of the FRP materials,

Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymers (CFRP) are used frequently in different civil engineering

strengthening applications. The Externally Bonded Reinforcement (EBR) technique has been used due

to its simple and fast installation procedure, durable and robust strengthening and significant

enhancement in the flexural capacity of reinforced concrete (RC) prismatic and non-prismatic members

[6, 8-14]. In addition, due to the linear stress–strain behavior of the CFRP material up to failure,

premature failure of the CFRP sheets along with end peeling and debonding of their ends are most likely

to be happened. Therefore, several studies were conducted in order to identify the appropriate methods

of preventing premature failure with the aim of improving the load carrying capacity and ductility of RC

members [15- 19]

Ultra high-performance-strain hardening cementitious composites (UHP-SHCC) is one form of

fiber reinforced composites that had been developed by Kunieda et al. [20]. It has high strength in both

compression and tension as well as high strain capacity in tension with strain hardening behavior [20-

22]. Previous studies showed the efficiency of the strain hardening cementitious composites in restoring

and increasing the ultimate capacity of reinforced concrete members [21-26]. In addition, it was found

that providing small amount of internal reinforcing steel enhanced the crack distribution and the strain

capacity of the UHP-SHCC repair tension layer [7, 27].

Each method of strengthening/retrofitting comes with a series of benefits and shortcomings. For

instance, section enlargement or concrete overlaying or patching add considerable dead load to the

strengthened/ retrofitted structure. The EB-CFRP sheets is expensive, need more care to anchorage their

ends and cannot sustain higher temperature. Externally bonded steel plate technique and external post-

tensioning steel strands are susceptible to corrosion damage which may lead to reversal effect on the

strengthened system.

-4-
 The main target of the current research work is to verify different strengthening techniques for the

opened-joint of broken slabs, in order to develop the most efficient strengthening system for doubling

their flexural resistance. Strengthening techniques based on the application of EB-CFRP sheets and

adding thin layer of UHP-SHCC at tension side are considered individually. In addition, hybrid system

of both techniques is also studied. Finally, the same previous strengthening techniques are implemented

on a new developed stitched precast slab specimens identical to the monolithic slabs.

2. Experimental work program

2.1 Test slabs

The experimental work program consisted of eight half-scale monolithic one-way broken slabs divided

into three groups: un-strengthened group No.1 and two strengthened groups using either EB-CFRP

sheets or thin layer of UHP-SHCC, (groups No.2 and No.3). Besides one additional group (group No.4)

represented a developed stitching system to construct precast slab similar to the monolithic one. Group

No.4 consisted of three stitched precast specimens strengthened using the same techniques applied to the

monolithic slabs.

All slabs had the same concrete dimensions and internal steel reinforcement. Each slab had 400

mm width × 80 mm thickness and a total span of 1800 mm divided into two equal parts; horizontal part

and inclined one with slope 1 (vertical): 2 (horizontal) as the slope of regular flight of RC stair. The

center to center span was 1700 mm. The flexural reinforcement of the slabs consisted of six smooth mild

steel bars of 8 mm diameter in the main direction and nine bars of 6 mm diameter as distributed steel in

the transverse direction as shown in Fig. 2. The flexural reinforcement ratio was 1.16% and it was below

the maximum reinforcement ratio allowed under the current Egyptian Code of practice, ECP 203-2007

[28] and the ACI 318-11[29] codes, in order to ensure tension failure of the slabs. Fig. 2 shows the

-5-
typical cross-section and the reinforcement detailing for typical un-strengthened slabs and the substrate

slab for the strengthened groups.

The strengthening technique for the tension side was based on the application of either Externally

Bonded Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer (EB-CFRP) sheets or adding 15 mm thickness layer of Ultra

High-Performance Strain-hardening Cementitious composites (UHP-SHCC). Group No. 2 was based on

the first technique (EB-CFRP) included four specimens. The first two specimens (SII-1 and SII-2) were

used in order to study the effect of both end anchorage and the CFRP transverse anchorage sheets at the

broken joint. The concrete tension cover of the third specimen (SII-3) was replaced by UHP-SHCC

material before the application of the properly anchored EB-CFRP sheets. The fourth specimen (SII-4)

was similar to specimen SII-3 except that the UHP-SHCC layer was added to the substrate control slab,

i.e., the total thicknesses of specimens SII-3 and SII-4 were 80 mm and 95 mm, respectively. Fig. 3

shows details of the strengthening schemes for Group No. 2.

Group No.3 included two slabs strengthened in tension side by adding 15 mm thickness UHP-

SHCC layer. For both specimens, the UHP-SHCC layer was reinforced by welded wire mesh of 100

mm x 100 mm with a wire diameter of 4 mm in order to reduce the volumetric changes. The first

specimen SIII-1 did not have shear dowels however, the surface of the RC substrate slab was prepared

more properly than that of the second specimen (SIII-2). The second specimen (SIII-2) as well as

specimen SII-4 had been provided by six shear connectors of 6 mm diameter at each fold of the slab in

the form of shear dowels to hold the welded wire mesh to the reinforced concrete substrate slab. Fig. 4

shows details of the strengthening schemes for Group No. 3.

Group No. 4 represented a developed stitching system in order to construct precast slabs similar to

the monolithic slabs, and then strengthened them with the same procedure. The precast slab was cast

into two parts then connected through the extended steel dowels with the same number as those of the

-6-
main internal steel. Since the developed precast slabs were connected at the maximum stressed section,

i.e., moment-transferred connection, the lengths of the extended steel bars were chosen to follow to the

development length stipulated by the Egyptian Code of practice (ECP 203-2007)[28] as given by Eq.

(1).
೑೤
ఈఉఎ൬ ൰
‫ܮ‬ௗ = ߶
ംೞ
(1)
ସ௙್ೠ

Where Ld = development length (mm); α = correction factor for the end bar condition = 0.75 for hooked-

ended bar; β = correction factor for the surface condition of the steel bar = 1, for smooth surface; ߟ = top

bar factor = 1.3 for reinforcement placed so that more than 300 mm of fresh concrete is cast below the

considered bar; ݂௬ = steel yield strength (MPa); ߛ௦ = strength reduction factor for steel bar = 1.15; ߶ =

bar diameter (mm); and ݂௕௨ = ultimate bond stress (MPa) according to Eq. (2).

௙
݂௕௨ = 0.3ට ఊ೎ೠ (2)
೎

Where, ݂௖௨ = concrete cube strength (MPa); and ߛ௖ = the strength reduction factor = 1.5. Based on the

material properties of the used materials, the required development length was about 230 mm. Hence,

the precast joint was proportioned as illustrated in Fig. 5, where the joint was filled with UHP-SHCC

material. The three specimens of group No.4 are illustrated in Fig. 6 showing the strengthening

configuration of the precast slabs. Table 1 shows nomenclature and characteristics of all slabs. The end

conditions of all specimens, except specimen SI-C2, were considered hinged-roller supports. The effect

of restraining the horizontal movement of both supports was studied by specimen SI-C2 through

adopting hinged-hinged supports.

All test slabs were cast in wooden forms upside down where the tension sides were at the top in

order to facilitate strengthening procedure. All specimens of groups No.1, group No.2 except specimen

SII-3 and group No.3 as well as the individual parts of the specimens of group No.4 were poured totally

-7-
with concrete at the same time, while specimen SII-3 was cast partially leaving the top 15 mm depth

without concrete. Two days after casting, the standard cubes (150 mm side length), standard cylinders

(150 mm diameter by 300 mm height), the concrete prism of 150 mm x 150 mm x 700 mm and the sides

of the specimens were stripped from the moulds and covered by plastic sheets. The upper surface of all

specimens were cured by water until the tenth day, and then allowed air-drying. After about four weeks,

the concrete surface were prepared for pouring the UHP-SHCC material. The replaced cover of

specimen SII-3, the UHP-SHCC layer of specimen SII4, specimens of group No. 3, the shear keys of all

specimens of group No. 4 as well as the UHP-SHCC layers of specimens SIV-2 and SIV-3, the standard

cubes, cylinders, prisms and tension specimens for UHP-SHCC were cast at the same day. The upper

surface of the UHP-SHCC layers were cured by water for seven days, and then allowed air-drying until

the testing day.

2.2 Strengthening scheme

The EB-CFRP strengthening sheets were consisted of two 100 mm width by 0.125 mm thickness CFRP

sheets extended by 1400 mm length in the longitudinal direction in the tension side of the slabs. These

sheets were centered in both horizontal and inclined parts as shown in Figs 3 and 6. Since the adopted

strengthened technique is considered as bond-critical application, surface preparation requirements in

accordance with ACI-440 (2008) recommendations [30] should be based on the intended application of

the CFRP system. The substrate slabs were cleaned and prepared by grinding to remove all

contamination such as dust, oil, grease, etc. and provide a mechanical key. The prepared surface was

checked for variation in levels using a 300 mm straight edge as recommended by the CFRP supplier

[31], where the maximum permissible deviation being 1 mm over a distance of 300 mm in any direction.

-8-
 The presence of curvature in the soffit of the broken slab may lead to the development of tensile

stresses normal to the adhesive and surface to which the CFRP sheet is bonded. Such tensile stresses

result when the CFRP sheet tends to straighten under load, and can promote the initiation of CFRP sheet

separation failure that reduces the effectiveness of the strengthened system [32, 33]. Figure 7(a) shows

the developed forces at the broken joint when the CFRP sheets tend to strengthen as well as the

developed tensile forces in the proposed CFRP anchors. Hence, it was found that providing two anchors

at the broken joint with the same cross-sectional area of the longitudinal CFRP sheet could resist the

developed tensile forces properly. Consequently, the CFRP anchors were proportioned and detailed as

illustrated in Fig. 7(b). The carbon fiber anchors were made by cutting a strip of the CFRP sheet,

inserting it into a predrilled hole of 15 mm diameter and 55 mm depth, and then fanning the ends of the

anchor over the CFRP sheet as shown in Figs. 3 and 6. All edges of the predrilled concrete holes were

rounded to limit stress concentrations at the anchor bend. The anchors and the CFRP sheets were applied

at the same time. First, an appropriate amount of the adhesive was mixed up, then the predrilled holes

for the anchors were filled with adhesive, and the longitudinal CFRP sheet were aligned in their

positions. Second, the anchors were penetrated the CFRP sheets and accommodated in their holes and

fanned along either the longitudinal sheets at the ends or along both longitudinal and transverse sheets at

the joints. Finally, an additional layer of adhesive was applied on both sheets and anchors. This process

ensures that the anchors and sheet form a continuous composite unit. In addition, for all CFRP-

strengthened slabs except specimen SII-2, two CFRP end anchors identical to those used at the broken

joint were used for each sheet and located at 100 mm away from the free edge of the sheets. Inserting

anchors into the core of the concrete slab ensures that stresses are transferred to the concrete, as well as

ensuring that failure does not occur by separation of the concrete cover or de-bonding of the CFRP

sheets [15-19, 34].

-9-
 For the 15 mm thickness UHP-SHCC layers and the shear keys of the precast slabs, the contact

surfaces of the RC substrates slabs were roughened using chisel to remove slurry cement from external

surfaces of coarse aggregates. The estimated roughness amplitude was about 8 mm for specimen SII-3,

and about 3 mm for other specimens. Before casting the UHP-SHCC layers, the contact surfaces of

concrete substrates were re-cleaned with brush and high-pressure air to ensure a clean bonding surface,

and then they were adequately damped by covering the concrete surface by water [25]. Just before

casting the UHP-SHCC layers, a bonding agent (Addibond 65, provided by CMB company-Egypt) was

applied to the concrete surfaces in order to enhance the bonding between the added UHP-SHCC

materials and the substrate concrete slabs.

2.3 Material properties

The used concrete was normal strength concrete with target cube strength of 30 MPa. It made from

ordinary Portland cement (Type I), natural sand, and crushed pink limestone type 1, as the coarse

aggregate of maximum size of 10 mm, with a mixture proportions as reported in Table 2. The actual

compressive strength and tensile strength of the used concrete were determined at the testing day using

the standard cubes, cylinders and prisms cast with the concrete slabs. It is worth mentioned that the

testing of all specimens were done in two consecutive days. The average compressive strength was

31.52 MPa, while the tensile strength was obtain from two tests, namely; cylinder splitting test and the

modulus of rupture test. The average split cylinder strength and the modulus of rupture strength were

3.44 and 6.68 MPa, respectively.

Ultra high-performance-strain hardening cementitious composites (UHP-SHCC), was made with

ingredients typically found in concrete, silica fume and superplasticizer based on poly-carboxylic ether.

However, no coarse aggregate was employed. Instead, high performance crack control micro-fibers were

- 10 -
added. The mix proportions of the UHP-SHCC used as a strengthening material are listed in Table 2.

15% of the design cement content was replaced by silica fume. High strength polypropylene fiber (PP)

was selectively chosen and its volume in mix was 1.5 %. The diameter and length of the PP fibers were

0.01 mm and 12 mm, respectively. In addition, expansion agent was added in order to compensate the

plastic shrinkage of the material.

The target compressive strength of the used UHP-SHCC was designed to be 60 MPa, while the

average actual strength of the standard cubes of 150 mm side was 53.5 MPa. Since the main property of

the used UHP-SHCC material was its tensile strength, the tensile strength was measured using three

different tests; namely, split cylinder test, modulus of rupture test and direct tension test. The average

split cylinder strength of three cylinders and the modulus of rupture strength based on an average value

of three standard prims were 4.76 and 12.87 MPa, respectively. Figures 8(a) and (b) show the failure

shape of the concrete cylinder and the prism, respectively. Figure 8(c) shows the test setup for the direct

tension test. The tension specimens were chosen as prisms of 50 mm width x 150 mm length in cross-

section and 450 mm height, while the measuring length was 200 mm. the tension force was applied to

the UHP-SHCC specimen through three high tensile steel bars of 12 mm diameter at each end embedded

into the specimen by 100 mm length. The developed longitudinal strain were measured as the average

value of four Pi-gauges mounted onto both sides of the specimen as shown in Fig. 8(c). The typical

failure of the specimen is illustrated in Fig. 8(d), while typical stress-strain curves are shown in Fig.

8(e).

In order to determine the mechanical properties of the used 8 mm diameter plain smooth tensile

steel bars, tensile tests were performed on three specimens. The mean value of tensile yield strength,

ultimate strength and Young’s modulus were 285 MPa, 410 MPa and 202 GPa, respectively. The tensile

yield strength and the ultimate strength of the 4 mm bar used for the welded wire mesh were 413 MPa,

- 11 -
and 597 MPa, respectively. The welded wire mesh was held in position through 12 steel dowels of 6 mm

diameter extruded from the base RC slab. These dowels had tensile yield strength and ultimate strength

as 274 MPa and 396 MPa, respectively.

Regarding the used CFRP sheets, high strength carbon fiber fabric X-Wrap C230 along with its

compatible X-Wrap lamination adhesive were used. Table 3 shows the mechanical properties for the

CFRP fabric sheet along with the adhesive as provided by the manufacturer [31].

2.4 Test setup and instrumentation

One bay of three-dimensional steel frame as presented in Fig.9 was equipped and then used in order to

carry out the testing. A 100 mm LVDT was used in order to measure the vertical deflection at mid-span

point of the slab at the broken joint. While, 6 mm strain gauges were used in order to measure the

developed normal strains in the internal reinforcement at the tension side (ST-1 and ST-2, Fig. 2) and

the CFRP sheets at positions shown in Fig. 3 (ST-3, ST-4, ST-5 and ST-6). In addition, a 100 mm gauge

length Pi-gauge was used in order to measure the deformation at the broken joint as shown in Fig. 9. The

slab was loaded at the joint by line load through a loading steel plate of 100 mm side and 30 mm

thickness. Therefore, in several steps the slab was loaded up to failure. The load on the slab was

measured by a load cell of 200 kN capacity.

After each loading step, the vertical mid-span deflection, the Pi-gauge readings, the developed

normal strains in the longitudinal steel bars in addition to the developed tensile strain in the CFRP sheets

were recorded. An automatic data logger unit (TDS-150) had been used in order to record and store the

readings during the test for the load cell, steel strain gauges, CFRP strain gauges, Pi-gauges, and LVDT.

- 12 -
3. Results and discussion

The test results of the un-strengthened and strengthened slabs with different techniques are presented

and analyzed in order to verify the efficiency of the adopted strengthening techniques in upgrading the

flexural resistance of the strengthened slabs. In general, all strengthened slabs achieved higher strength

and stiffness than that of the control un-strengthened slab. A summary of the test results is presented in

Table 4 and further discussions are conducted including modes of failures, ultimate capacity, developed

normal strains on both longitudinal steel bars and the CFRP sheets as well as the ductility.

3.1 Modes of failure

Due to the discrepancy of the structural behavior of both CFRP sheet and the UHP-SHCC material,

especially at the inelastic region as well as the variation in the behavior of both strengthening materials

and the substrate reinforced concrete slab, diverse modes of failures were manifested by each slab.

The failure of control slab, SI-C1, was typical flexural failure. Cracks began to appear at the

tension side of the horizontal part of slab at a vertical load of about 8.5 kN. With further loading, crack

width increased and other cracks spread on the tension side till steel strain exceeded the yield strain and

concrete crushed at the compression side. Due to the horizontal movement of the end support of the

inclined part, longitudinal cracks were appeared due to the developed pullout force at the joint leading to

slippage of the upper parts of the x-bars reinforcement as shown in Fig. 10(a). Preventing the horizontal

movement of both supports, as for slab SI-C2, led to regular flexural failure of the slab at the horizontal

part as shown in Fig. 10(b). This can be attributed to the developed membrane action in the inclined part

due to the developed normal force that prevented the development of the flexural cracks at the inclined

part.

- 13 -
 Figure 11 showed the failure modes of all specimens of group No.2. Failure of slab SII-1 was

typical flexural failure till the CFRP sheet began to debond at the broken joint at a vertical load of about

34.7 kN. With further loading, major flexural cracks were developed till complete failure was triggered

by complete debonding of all longitudinal edges of the CFRP sheets at the broken joint as depicted in

Fig. 11(a). It is worth mentioning that the properly designed CFRP anchors did not cut/ruptured, while

the longitudinal CFRP sheets debonded at the longitudinal free edges outside the effective zone of the

anchors. The observed mode of failure highlighted the importance of the transverse CFRP anchorage

sheets. Providing transverse CFRP anchorage sheets as depicted in Fig. 11(b), enabled the slab to sustain

higher load compared to the previous slab (SII-1). In addition, it delayed the debonding of the CFRP

sheet, however the failure was happened due to end debonding of the CFRP sheets at the horizontal part

due to the absence of the end anchorage. Inspite the concrete cover was replaced by UHP-SHCC

material in order to enhance the cracking behavior of slab SII-3, the manifested behavior was deficient.

This happened due to the absence of shear dowels between the UHP-SHCC cover and the substrate slab,

which resulted in premature separation of the UHP-SHCC cover at the broken joint as depicted in Fig.

11(c). It can be observed that the CFRP sheet did ruptured at complete failure and if the UHP-SHCC

material was properly anchored to the substrate slab, the specimen could sustain more load. Slab SII-4

showed the most favorable performance among all specimens of the group. Adding thin layer of the

UHP-SHCC material delayed the crack appearance, exhausted the tensile strength of the added UHP-

SHCC material till its failure. In addition, the CFRP sheets did not show any sign of rupture along the

sheets or at the anchors as shown in Fig. 11(d).

Inspite good surface preparation between the UHP-SHCC layer and the substrate slab of specimen

SIII-1, the absence of shear dowels resulted in detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer at the broken joint as

depicted in Fig. 12(a). The gap between the substrate slab and the UHP-SHCC reached up to 20 mm

- 14 -
near failure. On the other hand, properly connected UHP-SHCC layer enabled the slab to perform better

as exhibited by slab SIII-2. It resulted in delayed crack appearance, reduced crack width near failure and

showed better crack distribution. The measured crack width for the major crack of slab SIII-1 near

failure at a vertical load of about 51 kN was 0.56 mm, while the major crack width for slab SIII-2 at a

vertical load of about 54 kN was 0.2 mm. The average crack spacing near failure for slab SIII-1 was

about 35 mm, while it was about 28 mm for slab SIII-2. Furthermore, the UHP-SHCC layer of slab SIII-

2 did not show wide separation at the free longitudinal edges as exhibited by slab SIII-1, refer to Fig.

12(b).

The most obvious observation for all specimens of group No.4 was that the failure loads of all

specimens were higher than that of the opponent monolithic specimens. Specimen SII-2 failed at a

vertical load of about 49.8 kN, while specimen SIV-1 failed at a vertical load of about 54.5 kN.

Specimen SIII-2 failed at a vertical load of about 64.9 kN, while specimen SIV-2 failed at a vertical load

of about 94 kN. The failure loads of specimen SIII-4 and its opponent specimen, SIV-3, were about 67.7

and 89.3 kN, respectively. In addition, the specimens of group No.4 began to crack at higher loads. That

can be attributed to the higher concrete strength at the shear key joint owing to the UHP-SHCC material

where the maximum moment occurred. Failure of all specimens of group No.4 was flexural failure

governed by CFRP rupture for both specimens SIV-1 and SIV-3 as depicted in Fig. 13(a) to (c).

3.2 Cracking and ultimate loads

Table 4 shows the results of the major flexural cracking load for all specimens after the tensile resistance

of the concrete was exhausted. It can be noted that the highest percentage of the cracking load to

ultimate load was for control specimen SI-C1. It was about 0.64, which can be attributed to the

accelerated failure due to the moved end on the broken part. On the other hand, when the horizontal

- 15 -
movement was prevented as for specimen SI-C2, this percentage was decreased to be about 0.42. For

group No.2, the percentages of cracking loads to the ultimate loads ranged from 0.37 (specimen SII-4) to

0.49 (SII-1), while specimens SII-2 and SII-3 showed the same percentage of about 0.45. The relatively

higher percentage could be attributed to the effect of the CFRP sheets which prevented the appearance

of the hair cracks and controlled the crack propagation. As for specimens SIII-1 and SIII-2, hair cracks

began to appear on the substrate slabs at lower loads, which were about 0.20 of the ultimate load. The

specimens of group No.4 showed higher cracking loads among all specimens due to higher sustained

load. The percentage of cracking loads to the ultimate loads were 0.6, 0.32, and 0.3, respectively, for

specimens SIV-1, SIV-2 and SIV-3. The highest ratio showed by specimen SIV-1 was due to the lower

ultimate load owing to the rupture failure of the CFRP sheets.

Table 4 shows the results of the ultimate load carrying capacities for all specimens. These values

cannot be used for rational comparison due to differences in the total depth and concrete compressive

strength, especially between the monolithic specimens and the precast specimens. The total depth of

specimens SI-CI, SI-C2, SII-1, SII-2, SII-3 and SIV-1 was 80 mm, while the remaining specimens have

95 mm in total depth. In addition, the concrete compressive strength of precast specimens for group

No.4 at maximum stresses section was 53 MPa, while the compressive strength of the remaining

specimens was 32.52 MPa. In order to make the comparison more practical, all the ultimate capacities

are normalized to the relevant concrete dimensions and strength. The ratio between the corrected

normalized ultimate loads to that of the control specimen SC-1 are 1.15, 3.04, 3.74, 3.32, 4.29, 3.28, 4.1,

2.48, 3.59, and 3.41, respectively for specimens SI-C2, SII-1, SII-2, SII-3, SII-4, SIII-1, SIII-2, SIV-1,

SIV-2 and SIV-3. It can be concluded that all strengthening systems enabled the substrate slabs to

outperform their ultimate capacities by more than 100% even if the strengthened system leak of proper

anchorage. Restraining the horizontal movement of the supports resulted in increased capacity by about

- 16 -
15%. The application of EB-CFRP sheets enabled the slabs to increase their ultimate capacities by

about 204%, 274%, 232% and 329%, respectively, for specimens SII-1, SII-2, SII-3, and SII-4.

Consequently, specimens SII-4 exhibited the highest capacity among all specimens of group No.2.

Providing thin layer of UHP-SHCC material to the tension side of slabs showed increases in the ultimate

capacities by 228% and 310%, respectively for specimens SIII-1 and SIII-2. Properly anchored UHP-

SHCC layer exhibited a close increase in the ultimate capacity as that provided by the same thin layer in

addition to the CFRP sheet. Precast slabs showed comparable increases in the ultimate capacity. These

increases are 148%, 259% and 241%, respectively, for specimens SIV-1, SIV-2, and SIV-3.

From the structural point of view, providing 15 mm thick layer of UHP-SHCC material enabled

the slab (SIII-2) to exhibit 310% increase in the ultimate capacity, while the application of the EB-CFRP

sheet on the same layer showed 329% increase in the slab capacity (SII-4). That means the contribution

of the CFRP sheets over the UHP-SHCC is about 19%, which is very small compared to their expenses.

3.3 Load - deflection relationships

Figures 14 to 17 show the load-deflection relationships for all groups. Each slab exhibited linear

behavior up to the cracking load. Beyond that, a fast change in the slope of the load-deflection curve was

observed. With further loading, the yielding of the internal steel reinforcement occurred in all

specimens, while the manifested load-deflection plateaus after yielding were varied according to the

relevant strengthening techniques.

For un-strengthened specimens, both specimens SI-C1 and SI-C2 showed approximately identical

behavior up to cracking load of the specimen SI-C1, then the behavior showed different tend up to

failure. Near failure, the stiffness of specimen SI-C2 showed higher value due to restrained movement of

both supports. As for group No. 2, all specimens showed higher stiffness compared to that of control

- 17 -
specimen SI-C1 as shown in Fig. 15. With further loading, the instantaneous stiffness of specimen SII-4

showed the highest value compared to the remaining specimens of this group. This can be attributed to

the higher total depth of specimen SII-4 compared to the others. Both specimen SII-1 and SII-2 showed

abrupt drop in the resisting load due to the debonding failure of the CFRP sheets owing to the improper

anchorage system. Inspite that specimen SII-3 showed premature detachment of the replaced UHP-

SHCC cover it exhibited sudden drop in the ultimate load, and then it showed ductile behavior up to

failure. This can be attributed to the provided end anchors of the CFRP sheets that connected the CFRP

sheets and the UHP-SHCC concrete cover to the substrate slab. On the other hand, specimen SII-4

showed smooth ductile behavior after reaching the ultimate load due to properly anchored CFRP sheets

on appropriately connected UHP-SHCC layer to the substrate slab.

Figure 16 shows comparison between both specimens of group No. 3. It can be noticed that both

specimens showed identical behavior till the commencement of the detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer

of specimen SIII-1. With further loading, specimen SIII-1 showed decreased stiffness till the ultimate

load, and then the load dropped gradually till complete separation of the UHP-SHCC layer. On the other

hand, specimen SIII-2 showed hardening behavior after yielding up to complete collapse of the

specimen. As for group No.4, specimen SIV-1 showed the lowest instantaneous stiffness from the

beginning of loading up to complete failure due to the smaller thickness of this specimen compared to

the other specimens. Both specimens SIV-2 and SIV-3 showed identical behavior up to the yielding

load, and then specimen SIV-2 developed softening behavior up to failure. Providing EB-CFRP sheets

restrained the inelastic deformation of the UHP-SHCC layer leading to sudden rupture failure of the

CFRP sheets. This resulted in manifested ductile behavior of specimen SIV-3 inspite that it developed

lower ultimate capacity than that of specimen SIV-2, refer to Fig.17.

- 18 -
3.4 Steel strain

Table 4 shows the maximum recorded tensile strains on the internal steel bars at the broken joint. Based

on the measured mechanical properties of the used steel bars, the yield strain equals 1410 micro-strain. It

can observed that the developed strain on the internal steel bars of the control specimen SI-C1 was

relatively higher than that of the other un-strengthened specimen SI-C2. That can be attributed to the

horizontal movement of the end support of the inclined part, which developed additional pullout tensile

force on the internal steel bars. It can be noted that all internal steel bars for all specimens except

specimen SII-3 developed normal strains greater than the yield strain. This observation was matching

the exhibited mode of failure where all specimens developed tension mode of failure. However, the

premature detachment of the UHP-SHCC cover of specimen SII-3 could result in failure of the

mentioned specimen prior to reaching the yield point of the internal steel. The detachment of the UHP-

SHCC layer of specimen SIII-1 resulted in lower developed tensile strain on the internal bars compared

to the relevant specimen SIII-2. However, the developed steel strain was greater than the yield strain due

to the relatively higher sustained load.

3.5 CFRP strain

Away from the section where externally bonded CFRP sheet terminates, a failure controlled by CFRP

debonding may be govern [30]. In order to prevent the intermediate crack-induced debonding failure

mode, the effective developed strain in the CFRP sheet should be limited to the strain level at which

debonding may occur, εfd as defined in Eq. (3)

௙ᇲ
ߝ௙ௗ = 0.41ට௡ா ೎ ௧ ≤ 0.9ߝ௙௨ (3)
೑ ೑

Where ߝ௙ௗ = debonding strain of externally bonded CFRP; ݂௖ᇱ = specified compressive strength of

concrete (MPa); n = number of plies of CFRP sheet; ‫ܧ‬௙ = tensile modulus of elasticity of CFRP (MPa),

- 19 -
‫ݐ‬௙ = nominal thickness of one ply of CFRP reinforcement (mm); and ߝ௙௨ = design rupture strain of

CFRP reinforcement and can be calculated from Eq. (4)

ߝ௙௨ = ‫ܥ‬ா ߝ௙௨

∗
(4)

Where ‫ܥ‬ா = environmental reduction factor (0.95 for interior exposure); ߝ௙௨
∗
= ultimate rupture strain of

CFRP reinforcement.

Based on the mechanical properties of the used CFRP sheets as given in Table 3, ߝ௙ௗ = 11,887

micro-strain. Table 4 shows the maximum recorded tensile strains on the CFRP sheets at the measuring

points as shown in Fig. 3. It can be noted that none of specimens developed debonding strain inspite that

all specimens failed by rupture of the CFRP sheet except specimens SII-1 and SII-3. Specimen SII-1

failed due to debonding of the ends of the CFRP sheets due to the absence of the end anchorages, while

specimen SII-3 failed due to premature detachment of the UHP-SHCC holding the CFRP sheets. The

discrepancy of the strain results may be attributed to that failure occurred in all cases away from the

measuring points.

3.6 Ductility measurement

A ductile material is the one that can undergo inelastic deformations beyond the initial yielding while

resisting loads. For RC members, ductile failure is more favorable because it displays signs of

impending failure while retaining the capacity to carry loads. Conversely, RC members that fail in a

brittle mode of failure will show few signs of distress prior to failure. Reinforced concrete flexural

members strengthened with EB-FRP laminates exhibited decreased ductility [35, 36]. The main reason

for the decrease in ductility is related to the purely elastic behavior of the FRP until complete failure.

Besides, decrease in the ductility of strengthened RC flexural members may be caused by a non-ductile

failure mode controlled by debonding of the externally bonded FRP laminates [37, 38]. However,

- 20 -
properly anchored CFRP sheets were shown to be effective in delaying the debonding and also were

effective in enhancing the deformability and ductility of RC slabs strengthened in flexure with CFRP

sheets [6, 39]. Another way for enhancing bonding between the CFRP sheets and the substrate

strengthening member leading to enhanced ductility is using a thin transition layer of high performance

cementitious composites [27, 40].

For the current study, three indices were selectively chosen for ductility calculations, namely;

displacement-based ductility, energy-based ductility and performance factor. The displacement ductility

index, ߤ∆ , is defined by Eq. (5) [41]:

∆ೠ
ߤ∆ = (5)
∆೤

Where (∆u) is the mid-span deflection at failure and (∆y) is the mid-span deflection at yielding point

based on load-deflection relationship. The energy ductility index (µE) as presented in Eq. (6) [42] is

defined as the ratio between the energy of the slab at failure (Eu) and the energy of the slab at yielding

load (Ey).

ாೠ
ߤா = (6)
ா೤

The performance factor (PF) [43] equals the deformability factor (DF) multiplied by strength factor

(SF). The DF is the ratio between the deflection at ultimate state and the deflection corresponding to

serviceability limit state, while SF is the ratio of the ultimate load to the service load. For the current

study, the serviceability limit state is considered as that corresponds to the last point of the straight

portion of the load-deflection relationship. It is important to highlight that the deformability, strength,

and performance factors are not absolute, but comparative to those of the un-strengthened control slab.

- 21 -
 Table 5 shows the ductility indices for all slabs using the three schemes. It can noted that the three

ductility indices showed approximately the same trend when compared to the relevant ductility of the

control slab SI-C1.

Inspite restraining both supports of the slabs from horizontal movement resulted in increased

ultimate capacity, it decreased the corresponding ductility by 35%, 40%, and 38%, respectively,

considering displacement-based ductility index, energy-based index, and performance factor.

As for group No.2, anchorage system showed its crucial effect on the exhibited ductility. Improper

anchorage system as executed in specimens SII-1 and SII-2 showed decreased ductility compared to that

of control specimen SI-C1. Considering the displacement-based ductility, the percentages of decrease in

ductility were 60% and 44%, respectively, for specimens SII-1 and SII-2. This highlights that using

transverse CFRP sheet with the same width of the longitudinal sheet had dominant effect than that

providing end anchorages at the ends of the CFRP sheets. The performance factor results showed

approximately the same ductility decreases obtained by the displacement-based index. However, the

energy-based indices showed higher decreases in the ductility. These decreases were 63% and 52%,

respectively, for specimens SII-1 and SII-2. On the other hand, providing end anchorage as well as

transverse anchorage sheets at the joint enabled the slab to outperform its ductility as manifested by

specimens SII-3 and SII-4 [6, 39]. Inspite that specimen SII-3 exhibited the highest ductility indices

among all tested specimens using different strengthening techniques, this enhancement is false. That

can be attributed to the manifested mode of failure of this specimen where the UHP-SHCC replacement

layer was noticed to be separated from the substrate slab near failure due to the absence of shear dowels.

This resulted in increased deflection considerably leading to increased ductility measurements. On

contrary, specimen SII-4 showed lower ductility indices compared to those of specimen SII-3. However,

from both ultimate strength and ductility viewpoints, specimen SII-4 showed the outstanding

- 22 -
performance when compared to those of the control specimen SI-C1. This results is in complete

agreement with the results obtained by others [27, 40]

For group No.3, both specimens, SIII-1 and SIII-2, showed decreased ductility indices compared

to that of control specimen, SI-C1. The highest ductility decreases were for displacement-based index.

These decreases were 45% and 32%, respectively, for specimens SIII-1 and SIII-2, compared to that of

specimen SI-C1. It can be noticed that providing sufficient shear dowels holding the internal mesh of the

UHP-SHCC layer to the substrate slab resulted in enhanced ductility by about 13%, 8%, and 6%,

respectively, for displacement-based index, energy-based index, and the performance factor.

Comparing the ductility indices of the stitched slabs against the relevant monolithic slabs showed

the adequacy of the proposed stitching system. Comparing specimens SIV-1 and SII-2, showed

enhanced ductility of the stitched slab (SIV-1) by an average percentage of about 18%, considering an

average value of the three ductility indices. Comparing ductility indices for specimens SIV-2 and SIII-2,

showed an average increase of about 7% for the monolithic specimen (SIII-2). Specimen SIV-3 showed

enhanced ductility compared to that of specimen SIV-2, where its average ductility enhancement was

about 34%. Comparing the ductility indices of specimens SIV-3 and SII-4, showed an average increase

of about 10% for the monolithic specimen (SII-4).

4. Conclusion

Based on the studied strengthening techniques for reinforced concrete opened-joint broken slabs,

loading scheme, and according to the used concrete dimensions and adopted strengthening

configurations, the following conclusions maybe drawn:

1. For strengthened slabs using EB-CFRP sheets, both intermediate anchors at the broken joint and the

end anchors should be provided in order to sidestep premature debonding failure of the CFRP

- 23 -
 sheets. In addition, transverse anchorage sheets at the broken joint are also essential to eliminate the

debonding of the longitudinal edges of the CFRP sheets near failure.

2. The application of properly anchored CFRP sheets on the tensile side of the opened-joint broken

slabs enabled them to outperform their ultimate capacities compared to that of control un-

strengthened slab by more than 200%.

3. When the concrete cover of the opened-joint broken slab replaced by UHP-SHCC material, it has to

be connected to the substrate slab by any mechanical means in order to avoid premature detachment

of the UHP-SHCC material. The application of CFRP without transverse anchorage sheets at the

broken joint enabled the slab to increase its ultimate capacity by about 274% compared to that of

un-strengthened slab. On the other hand, the application of properly anchored CFRP sheet after

replacement of the concrete cover by UHP-SHCC material showed 232% increase.

4. Adding thin layer (15 mm thick) of reinforced UHP-SHCC material by internal welded wire mesh

showed an increase in the ultimate capacity by about 228%. When the internal welded wire mesh

was connected to the substrate slab by shear dowels, this increase reached up to 310%.

5. The proposed stitching technique of the precast slabs showed adequate results from both ultimate

capacity and ductility viewpoints.

6. Application of properly anchored EB-CFRP sheets on a well-connected thin layer of UHP-SHCC

layer enabled the substrate broken slab to show outstanding ductile performance in addition to more

than 300% gain in the ultimate load-carrying capacity.

References

[1] Mufti AA. FRPs and FOSs lead to innovation in Canadian civil engineering structures. Constr Build

Mater 2003; 17:379–87.

- 24 -
[2] Nanni A. Flexural behavior and design of RC members using 1035 FRP reinforcement. J

StructEng1993; 119(11): 3344–3359.

[3] Rizkalla SH. A new generation of civil engineering structures and bridges. Proc., of the Third Int.

Symp. On Non-Metallic (FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-3), Sapporo,

Japan Concrete Institute, Japan, 1997, Vol. 1, 113-128.

[4] Bolander JE, Berton S. Simulation of shrinkage induced cracking in cement composite overlays.

Cem Concr Res 2004; 26:861–871.

[5] Barros JA, Cunha VM, Ribeiro AF, Antunes JA. Post-cracking behavior of steel fiber reinforced

concrete. Mater Struct 2005; 38:47–56.

[6] Afefy HM, Fawzy TM. Strengthening of RC one-way slabs including cut-out using different

techniques. Eng Struct 2013; 57C: 23- 36.

[7] Afefy HM, Mahmoud MH. Structural performance of RC slabs provided by pre-cast ECC strips in

tension cover zone. Constr Build Mater 2014; 65: 103–113.

[8] De Lorenzis L, Miller B and Nanni A. Bond of fiber-reinforced polymer laminates to concrete. ACI

Mater J 2001: 98(3); 256-264.

[9] Rasheed HA, Harrison RR, Peterman RJ, Alkhrdaji T. Ductile strengthening using externally bonded

and near surface mounted composite systems. Compos Struct 2010; 92:2379–2390.

[10] Jumaat MZ, Rahman MM, Rahman MA. Review on bonding techniques of CFRP in strengthening

concrete structures. Int J Phys Sci 2011; 6:3567–3575.

[11] Cromwell JR, Harries KA, Shahrooz BM. Environmental durability of externally bonded FRP

materials intended for repair of concrete structures. Constr Build Mater 2011; 25:2528–2539.

- 25 -
[12] Benzarti K, Freddi F, Frémond M. A damage model to predict the durability of bonded assemblies.

Part I: de-bonding behavior of FRP strengthened concrete structures. Constr Build Mater 2011;

25:547–555.

[13] Hussein M. Strengthening of non-prismatic continuous reinforced concrete beams using CFRP.

14thIntConf on Structural Faults and Repair for structural concrete. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. 3-5

July 2012.

[14] Afefy HM, Mahmoud MH, Fawzy TM. Rehabilitation of defected RC stepped beams using CFRP.

EngStruct2013; 49(4):295–305.

[15] Orton SL, Jirsa JO, Bayrak O. Design considerations of carbon fiber anchors. J Compos Constr

2008; 12:608–616.

[16] Zhang HW, Smith ST. FRP-to-concrete joint assemblages anchored with multiple FRP anchors.

Compos Struct 2012; 94:403–314.

[17] Bren SF, McGuirk GN. Advances on the behavior characterization of FRP anchored Carbon Fiber-

Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) sheets used to strengthen concrete elements. Int J Concr Struct Mater

2013; 7:3–16.

[18] Bank L. Progressive failure and ductility of FRP composites for construction: review. J Compos

Constr 2013; 17:406–419.

[19] Biolzi L, Ghittoni C, Fedele R, Rosati G. Experimental and theoretical issues in FRP–concrete

bonding. Constr Build Mater 2013; 41(4):182–90.

[20] Kunieda M, Denarie E, Bruhwiler E, Nakamura H. Challenges for strain hardening cementitious

composites-deformability versus matrix density. Proc. of the 5th Int. RILEM workshop on

HPFRCC 2007: 31-38.

- 26 -
[21] Kamal A, Kunieda M, Ueda N, Nakamura H. Evaluation of crack opening performance of a repair

material with strain hardening behavior. Cem Concr Compo 2008; 30(10): 863–871.

[22] Kunieda M, Ueda N, Nakamura H, Tamakoshi T. Development of spraying technique for UHP-

SHCC. Proc. of the Concrete Structure Scenarios 2009; 9: 349–354.

[23] Li VC. From micromechanics to structural engineering: the design of cementitious composites for

civil engineering applications. JSCE J Struct Mech & Earthq Eng 1993; 10: 37-48.

[24] Li VC. ECC for repair and retrofit of concrete structures. Proc Fracture Mechanics of Concrete

Structures, FRAMCOS-3, 1998: 1715-1726.

[25] Li VC. High performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites as durable material for concrete

structure repair. Int J Restor Build Monuments 2004; 10: 163-180.

[26] Kunieda M, Hussein M, Ueda N, Nakamura H. Enhancement of crack distribution of UHP-SHCC

under axial tension using steel reinforcement. J Adv Concr Tech 2010; 8: 49-57.

[27] Hussein M, Kunieda M, Nakamura H. Strength and ductility of RC beams strengthened with steel-

reinforced strain hardening cementitious composites. J Cem Concr Compo 2012; 34: 1061-1066.

[28] Egyptian Code for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, (ECP 203-2007)

2007.

[29] American Concrete Institute, ACI, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-

11) and Commentary. Farmington Hills: ACI, 2011

[30] ACI 440.2R-08 (2008). Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP System

for Strengthening Concrete Structures. ACI Committee 440, American Concrete Institute,

Farmington Hills, MI, 45 pp.

[31] X-Calibur, www.x-calibur.us

- 27 -
[32] Aiello, M. A.; Galati, N.; and Tegola, L. A., 2001, “Bond Analysis of Curved Structural Concrete

Elements Strengthened using FRP Materials,” Fifth International Symposium on Non-Metallic

(FRP) Reinforcement for Concrete Structures (FRPRCS-5), Cambridge-Thomas Telford, London,

pp. 680-688.

[33] Eshwar, N.; Ibell, T.; and Nanni, A., 2003, “CFRP Strengthening of Concrete Bridges with Curved

Soffits,” International Conference Structural Faults + Repair 2003, M. C. Forde, ed.,

Commonwealth Institute, London, 10 pp. (CD-ROM)

[34] Kim SJ, Smith ST. Strengthening of RC slabs with large penetrations using anchored FRP

composites. The second Official International Conference of International Institute for FRP in

Construction for Asia-Pacific Region. Seoul, Korea, 2009, 9-11 December 2009.

[35] Bencardino F, Spadea G, Swamy N. Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete beams externally

reinforced with carbon fiber fabric. ACI Struct. J 2002; 99(2): 163-171.

[36] Lee T, Pan A, Ma M. Ductile design of reinforced concrete beams retrofitted with fiber reinforced
polymer plates. J Compos Constr 2004; 8(6): 489-500.

[37] Pham H, Al-Mahaidi R. Prediction models for de-bonding failure loads of carbon fiber reinforced
polymer retrofitted reinforced concrete beams. J Compos Constr 2006; 10(1): 48-59.

[38] Xiong GJ, Jiang X, Liu JW, Chen L. A way for preventing tension delamination of concrete cover
in mid-span of FRP strengthened beams. Constr Build Mater 2007; 21(2): 402-408.

[39] Smith ST, Hu S, Kim SJ, Seracino R. FRP-strengthened RC slabs anchored with FRP anchors. Eng

Struct 2011; 33(4):1075–1087.

[40] Afefy HM, Kassem N, Hussein M. Enhancement of flexural behavior of CFRP-strengthened

reinforced concrete beams using engineered cementitious composites transition layer. Struct

Infrastruct Eng 2015;(8): 1042–1053.

- 28 -
[41] Bonaldo E, Oliveira de Barros, JA, Lourenço PB. Efficient strengthening technique to increase the

flexural resistance of existing RC slabs. J Compos Constr 2008; 12: 149-159.

[42] Thomsen HH, Spacone E, Limkatanyu S, Camata G. Failure mode analysis of reinforced concrete

beams strengthened in flexure with externally bonded fiber- reinforced polymers. J Compos Constr

2004; 8: 123-131.

[43] Mufti AA, Newhook JP, Tadros G. Deformability versus ductility in concrete in beams with FRP
reinforcement.” Proc., 2nd Int. Conf. on Advanced Composite Materials in Bridges and Structures,
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Montreal, 1996: 189-199.

- 29 -
Figures captions
Fig. 1 Detailing of the opened-joint for broken slab.
Fig. 2 Concrete dimensions and reinforcement detailing for typical control un-strengthened and base
strengthened specimens.
Fig. 3 Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 2.
Fig. 4 Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 3.
Fig. 5 Details of the precast stitched joint.
Fig. 6 Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 4.
Fig. 7 Developed forces and details of the CFRP anchors at the broken joint.
Fig. 8 Tension test results for UHP-SHCC material.
Fig. 9 Test setup.
Fig. 10 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 1.
Fig. 11 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 2.
Fig. 12 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 3.
Fig. 13 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 4.
Fig. 14 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.1.
Fig. 15 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.2.
Fig. 16 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.3.
Fig. 17 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.4.

- 30 -
 M M
M M
Developm ent length

De Developed m ajor cracks

v el
opm
ent T
le n
g th
C oncrete cover falling T
M = bending m om ent
T = tension force

(a) Correct detailing (b) Wrong detailing

Fig. 1 Detailing of the open joint for broken slab.

- 31 -
 80 m m
6 8 6 8
400 m m

C ross-section of the slab

400 mm
6 8

D istributed steel of diam eter 6 m m

ST -1 ST -2

400 mm
900 m m 800 m m 100 m m

Plan of steel reinforcem ent

Fig. 2 Concrete dimensions and reinforcement detailing for typical control un-strengthened and base
strengthened specimens.

- 32 -
 CFRP anchors

50
80
50
mm

50
700 10 0
mm mm
EB-CFRP sheet

50 mm

ST-3 ST-4
400 mm

SII-1
ST-5 ST-6

700 mm
850 mm 850 mm

100 100

50
50 mm

ST-3 ST-4

100
400 mm

SII-2

100
ST-5 ST-6

100
700 mm

50
850 mm 850 mm
15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer 50

ST-3 ST-4
100
400 mm

SII-3
100

ST-5 ST-6 SII-4

100

700 mm
50

850 mm 850 mm

For specimen SII-3, 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC was included into the slab thickness
For specimen SII-4, 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC was added to the slab thickness

Fig. 3 Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 2.

- 33 -
 80
700 mm

700
mm
15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer

Steel dowels of 6 mm diameter

100 mm x 100 mm Welded wire fabric 100 mm x 100 mm Welded wire fabric
of 4 mm diameter of 4 mm diameter

850 mm 850 mm 850 mm 850 mm

SIII-1 SIII-2

Fig. 4 Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 3.

- 34 -
 60 mm UHP-SHCC patching
300 mm 60
mm

30 0
mm
40 mm
40
mm
Sec. A - A

8 mm bar diameter (total length = 650 mm)

top and bottom

80
80
400 mm
A A
80
80
80

80 mm

300 mm 300 mm

UHP-SHCC patching

Plan of the proposed precast joint

Fig. 5 Details of the precast joint.

- 35 -
 300 mm
UHP-SHCC patching
300 mm UHP-SHCC patching
300 300
mm
55

mm
50
80

50
CFRP anchors

55
700 100 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer 700
mm mm
mm
EB-CFRP sheet

50 mm x 50 mm Welded wire fabric

of 4 mm diameter

50
50 mm

100
400 mm

100
100
50
150 mm 150 mm
700 mm 700 mm
850 mm 850 mm 850 mm 850 mm

SIV-1 SIV-2
300 mm UHP-SHCC patching
300
mm
70
80

70
15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer 700
mm

50 mm x 50 mm Welded wire fabric

of 4 mm diameter

SIV-3
400 mm

Fig. 6 Details of the strengthening schemes for group No. 4.

- 36 -
 C F R P an c h ors
TF = R e sis tin g te ns ile fo rc e
b y C F R P sh e et
R = R e su lta n t o u tw a rd fo rc e de v elo pe d
E B -C F R P s he e t by C F R P s he e t
TA = T e n sile forc e c a rrie d by
C F R P a n ch o r
TA D = 15 m m

80 mm
TA
TF TA

55

55
R
153° TF TA 50 m m

mm
50
mm

80
R = 0 .7 7 T F TA = 0 .4 0 T F
F re e b o d y d iag ra m fo r C F R P fo rce s E q u ilib riu m tria n g le o f fo rces

(a) Developed forces at the broken joint (b) Details of the CFRP anchors at the joint

Fig. 7 Developed forces and details of the CFRP anchors at the broken joint.

- 37 -
(a) Split cylinder, UHP-SHCC (left) Normal strength (right)

(b) Bridging effect of the fiber (Modulus of rupture test) (c) Set-up for direct tension test of UHP-SHCC

5
Stress (MPa)

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Strain x10-6

(d) Failure due to direct tension test of UHP-SHCC (e) Typical stress-strain test of the UHP-SHCC

Fig. 8 Tension test results for UHP-SHCC material.

- 38 -
 L oad cell
80 mm

50 m m Pi-gauges

mm
80
LV D T

400 mm

80 mm
100 m m

C onnecting bolts

850 m m 800 m m

Strong girder of the m ain fram e

Fig. 9 Test setup.

- 39 -
(a) Specimen SI-C1 (b) Specimen SI-C2

Fig. 10 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 1.

- 40 -
 (a) Specimen SII-1 (b) Specimen SII-2

(c) Specimen SII-3 (d) Specimen SII-4

Fig. 11 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 2.

- 41 -
(a) Specimen SIII-1 (b) Specimen SIII-2

Fig. 12 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 3.

- 42 -
(a) Specimen SIV-1 (b) Specimen SIV-2 (c) SpecimenSIV-3

Fig. 13 Failure modes for all slabs of group No. 4.

- 43 -
 20
18
16
14
Vertical load, kN 12
10
8
6
4 SI-C1
2 SI-C2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mid-span deflection, mm

Fig. 14 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.1.

- 44 -
 100
90
80 SI-C1
SII-1
70
Vertical load, kN
SII-2
60 SII-3
50 SII-4
40
30
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mid-span deflection, mm

Fig. 15 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.2.

- 45 -
 100
90
80
70

Vertical load, kN
60
50
SI-C1
40
SIII-1
30
SIII-2
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mid-span deflection, mm

Fig. 16 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.3.

- 46 -
 100
90
80
70
Vertical load, kN 60
50
40
30
SI-C1
20 SIV-1
10 SIV-2
SIV-3
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Mid-span deflection, mm

Fig. 17 Comparison among load-deflection relationships for all slabs of group No.4.

- 47 -
 Table 1 Test matrix
Group
Specimen Characteristics Objectives
No.
SI-C1 Hinged-roller supports of slab (control specimen)
Un-strengthened
1
group
SI-C2 Hinged-hinged supports of slab

SII-1 Application of CFRP sheets with anchorages at ends as well as at the joint
Application of CFRP sheets with anchorages at the joint only along with transversal
SII-2
CFRP sheet Strengthening using
2
Application of 15 mm UHP-SHCC transition layer in the cover zone before bonding EB-CFRP sheets
SII-3
the CFRP sheets as SII-2
SII-4 Adding of 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer before bonding the CFRP sheets as SII-2

SIII-1 Adding of 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer provided by welded wire steel mesh Strengthening using
3 a thin layer of
Adding of 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC layer provided by anchored welded wire steel
SIII-2 UHP-SHCC
mesh
SIV-1 Stitching two precast slab units then strengthening as SII-2
Strengthening using
proposed stitching
4 SIV-2 Stitching two precast slab units then strengthening as SIII-2
technique for
Stitching two precast slab units then added 15 mm thick UHP-SHCC as SIII-2. precast units
SIV-3
Finally, application of CFRP sheet as SII-2

- 48 -
 Table 2 Mix proportions of RC slabs and UHP-SHCC material for one cubic meter (kg/m3)

Crushed pink Silica Expansion Super- PP Fiber

Concrete mix W/B* Cement Sand Water
limestone fume agent plasticizer (12 mm)
RC 0.45 400 650 1300 180 --- --- --- ---
UHP-SHCC 0.23 1243 149 --- 338 223 20 16.2 14.6
* W/B is the water/ binder ratio, B = cement + silica fume

- 49 -
Table 3 Mechanical properties of used CFRP sheets along with the adhesive

Criteria CFRP sheets Adhesive

Tensile strength, MPa 4000 45*

Modulus of elasticity GPa 240 1.67*
Failure strain, % 2 --
Thickness, mm 0.125 ---
Glass transition temperature --- 65C
*these values were obtained after 7d/20oC

- 50 -
 Table 4 Experimental results
Maximum measured
Deflection,
Loads, kN normal strain near
Group mm failure, micro-strain
Specimen Dominant mode of failure
No. CFRP
Pcr Py Pu ∆u Steel bars
sheet
SI-C1 8.5 10.5 13.3 37.6 5618 --- Flexural failure
1
SI-C2 9.4 12.6 15.3 45.4 3043 --- Flexural failure

SII-1 20 30.1 40.4 10.3 2770 6593 CFRP debonding at the joint

End debonding of the CFRP sheets at

SII-2 22.5 40.4 49.8 21.2 5219 5334 straight part
2
Detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer
SII-3 20 33.8 44.2 46.3 1175 2200 at the central part
Flexural failure accompanied by
SII-4 25 48.9 67.7 33.9 3704 4503 separation of the UHP-SHCC layer

SIII-1 10.4 36.7 51.7 19.1 1760 --- Detachment of the UHP-SHCC layer
3
Flexural failure along with failure of
SIII-2 13.9 51.7 64.9 35.5 5540 --- the UHP-SHCC layer

SIV-1 32.8 45.3 54.5 43.3 2618 5130 Rupture of CFRP sheet

Flexural failure at the UHP-SHCC

4 SIV-2 30 75.3 94.0 33.3 5210 --- joint

SIV-3 27 72.5 89.3 49.8 4130 5129 Rupture of the CFRP sheet at the joint

Pcr = cracking load; Py = yielding load; Pu = ultimate load; ∆y= central deflection corresponding to the yielding load; ∆u= central deflection
corresponding to the ultimate load.

- 51 -
 Table 5 Ductility indices for test slabs

Displacement-based ductility Energy-based ductility Performance factor

Group
Specimen ∆௨ , ∆௨ W.R.T E y, Eu, ‫ܧ‬௨ W.R.T
ߤ∆ୀ ߤாୀ
W.R.T
∆௬ , mm
∆௬ SI-C1 ‫ܧ‬௬ SI-C1
No. DF SF PF
mm kN.m kN.m SI-C1

SI-C1 7.7 37.6 4.88 1.00 53.96 408.41 7.57 1.00 4.88 1.27 6.18 1.00
1
SI-C2 14.4 45.4 3.15 0.65 130.15 586.28 4.50 0.60 3.15 1.21 3.83 0.62

SII-1 5.3 10.3 1.94 0.40 100.26 282.25 2.82 0.37 1.94 1.34 2.60 0.42

SII-2 7.8 21.2 2.72 0.56 218.15 799.92 3.67 0.48 2.72 1.23 3.35 0.54
2
SII-3 5.7 46.3 8.12 1.66 124.56 1703.9 13.68 1.81 8.12 1.31 10.62 1.72

SII-4 7.1 33.9 4.77 0.99 238.37 1904.6 7.99 1.06 4.77 1.38 6.60 1.07

SIII-1 7.1 19.1 2.69 0.55 162.25 720.1 4.44 0.59 2.69 1.41 3.79 0.61
3
SIII-2 10.7 35.5 3.32 0.68 357.6 1803.6 5.04 0.67 3.32 1.26 4.14 0.67

SIV-1 12.2 43.3 3.55 0.73 358.2 1886.3 5.27 0.70 3.55 1.20 4.27 0.69

4 SIV-2 11.7 33.3 2.85 0.58 502.3 2422.7 4.82 0.64 2.85 1.25 3.56 0.58

SIV-3 11.4 49.8 4.37 0.90 474.4 3732.8 7.87 1.04 4.37 1.23 5.38 0.87

∆y= central deflection corresponding to the yielding load; ∆u= central deflection corresponding to the ultimate load; ߤ∆ =
deflection ductility index; Ey =Energy of the system at yielding load, Eu=Energy of the system at failure state, ߤா =Energy
ductility index; DF = deformability factor, SF = strength factor, PE = performance factor; W.R.T= with respect to the
relevant value of control specimen SI-C1.

- 52 -